Obregon v. Ryan et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 . The petitioner's Petition is Denied and the action is dismissed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 3/10/2015. (ACL)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Anthony Donald Obregon,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-00598-PHX-PGR

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16

The Court has before it the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) of Magistrate

17

Judge Mark E. Aspey, filed on February 11, 2015. Petitioner, Anthony Donald Obregon,

18

has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has conducted a de

19

novo review of Obregon’s petition and objections. For the reasons discussed below, the

20

Court rejects Obregon’s objections and accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report

21

and Recommendation.

22

Obregon objects that he did not bring this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but

23

rather that he brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, the Report and

24

Recommendation explicitly states that Obregon’s petition is properly brought under

25

§ 2254 rather than § 2241, and this Court agrees. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002,

26

1005-07 (9th Cir, 2004) (§ 2254 is the exclusive avenue for challenging constitutionality

27

of continued detention by prisoner in state custody pursuant to a state court judgment),

28

overruled on other grounds, Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 555 (9th Cir. 2010) (en

1

banc); Montue v. Department of Corrections, 279 Fed. App’x 506 (9th Cir. 2008)

2

(challenge to denial of parole brought in a § 2241petition properly dismissed because

3

such challenges can only properly be brought in a § 2254 petition); Sass v. California

4

Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (§ 2254 is exclusive vehicle

5

for state prisoner challenging parole board decision), overruled on other grounds,

6

Hayward, 603 F.3d at 555. Obregon may have been confused that the Report and

7

Recommendation even mentions § 2241, but his issue was raised by the state, which

8

argued in its answer that the petition should be viewed under § 2241 rather than § 2254.

9

(See Doc. 12 at 5-6.) The Report and Recommendation rejects the state’s position and

10

instead recommends that this Court find that the petition is properly brought under

11

§ 2254.

12

Obregon objects that he has a constitutional right to be released upon the service

13

of his required court-ordered “mandatory minimum” sentence, and that his constitutional

14

rights have been violated by the state’s continued detention of him beyond January 14,

15

2014. Contrary to Obregon’s arguments, he is not being held beyond the date his

16

sentence expired and his sentence was not “commuted” to January 14, 2014. Rather,

17

January 14, 2014, was merely the date that Obregon first became eligible for parole

18

because he had served the mandatory minimum of two-thirds of his total forty-two year

19

sentence. Thus, the Court will reject Obregon’s objection that he is being held after his

20

sentence expired.

21

Further, that Obregon became eligible for parole on January 14, 2014, does not

22

mean that he had the right to be released on that date. See Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal

23

Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979) (no constitutional right to be released before expiration of a

24

valid sentence). To the contrary, where a state, such as Arizona, provides for release on

25

parole, Due Process requires only that the state have fair procedures in place for seeking

26

such release, and this Court’s review of the denial of parole is limited to the application

27

of the state’s procedures. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). Obregon

28

does not challenge the state’s procedures for seeking parole, or how those procedures

-2-

1

were applied to him. Accordingly, the Court will reject Obregon’s objection that he had

2

the right to be released on January 14, 2014, and his challenges to the denial of parole.

3
4

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.
14) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

6

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is Denied and that this action is

7

dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued

9

and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because the petitioner

10

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in that he has

11

failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the Court’s assessment of his

12

constitutional claims to be debatable or wrong.

13
14

Dated this 10th day of March, 2015.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-